Computerized method of health prophylaxis through food combining microcomputer for food combining software product for food combining

ABSTRACT

An apparatus and method for health prophylaxis through food combining. Using an electronic multi-food combining table to recommend nutritional quality of food stuff combinations consumed. Recommendations are based on observations over a 3-4 hour period after meals are digested.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The knowledge accumulated by people on food combining is mostsystematically reflected and approved by Dr. Shelton: Dr. Herbert M.Shelton “Food Combining Made Easy”, 1951 Dr. Herbert M. Shelton “TheScience and Fine Art of Food and Nutrition”, 6th rev.ed. (HygienicSystem, v.2), 591pp il pa 1984, Natural Hygiene Press.

Dr. Shelton summed up this knowledge in his famous table which wecompletely reproduce on the next page as the basis of the inventionproposed hereby.

The volume of the knowledge on Food Combining is large enough to be usedby an ordinary man in his health prophylaxis going just by the printedmaterials on the subject, yet we have not encountered any attempts tocomputerize such health prophylaxis for ordinary people. Hence we aretrying to make such a step. We claim a group of three closely connectedinventions consisting of the Method and the Technical Facilitiesdeveloped particularly to implement the said Method as stated hereabove.

Dr. Shelton's “Food Combining Table” Salad Non-Starchy or Raw SweetSweet Sour Vegetables Green Acid Sub-Acid Fruits Protein Starch Fat MilkMilk (cooked) Vegetables Fruits Fruits (Dried) Melons Protein bad badbad bad bad good good poor* bad bad bad Starch bad good good bad badgood good bad fair poor bad Fat bad good good fair fair good good goodgood good bad Sweet Milk bad bad good poor poor fair fair bad bad SourMilk bad bad good poor poor fair fair fair bad Green Vegc.† good goodgood poor poor good good poor fair poor bad Sub-Acid Fruits† bad badgood fair fair poor poor good good good fair Acid Fruits bad bad goodfair fair fair fair good good poor fair Sweet Fruits‡ poor poor goodpoor fair poor poor poor good good fair Melons bad bad bad bad bad badbad bad fair fair good *Acid fruits are fair with nuts. †Raw or cooked.‡Dried

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In order to define the subject of the proposed invention, depictconsistently the technical problem of “Health Protection through FoodCombining” and outline its solution we should give some briefinformation from Dr. Shelton's works.

According to Dr. Shelton, Food Combining covers a combination ofscientific and practical facts testifying that digestion goes by thelaws of physiology and biochemistry, which make it necessary to takeinto account some known physiological limitations of digestion, enzymesand gastric juice every time we are planning some food combinations fora single meal. The main problem is that people do not get health,strength and benefit from what they are eating, but from what theirbodies can digest and assimilate. The correct food combinations for asingle meal facilitate an easy assimilation of food in the stomach,while incorrect food combinations for a single meal make obstacles infood assimilation thus increasing time of digestion and assimilation andproducing unnecessary fermentation in the stomach and in the intestines.Stomach distress (heart burn), gases, belching (eructation) and mucusflows are the notoriously known signs of such fermentation. Incorrectfood combinations at a single meal cause fermentation and putrefactionwhich produce, as a result of bacterial decomposition, such products ascarbonic acid gas, spiritus, ammonia, acids etc. In order to neutralize,insulate and take out these poisons the human body has to waste itsvital reserves. Incorrect food combinations not only fail to increasethe stock of power and vitamins, but even deprive the organism of theexisting stocks. The fact is, when poison accumulation exceeds thebody's capability to neutralize it, the body's reserves are wasted onelimination the toxins. The prolonged struggle between the body and theindigestive food combinations or with poisonous products of bacterialdecomposition sooner or later weakens the body. It is the incorrectnutrition that causes enormous waste of vital power and physiologicalreserves, which could otherwise be used later on. These reserves areespecially vital for elderly people who are weaker anyway and whoserehabilitation capabilities are hindered. With the body's reservescarefully controlled, according to Dr. Shelton, people could outlive 100years still preserving a juvenile enthusiasm and energy.

This view of Dr. Shelton, the doctor of 9 sciences, author of 40research works, is supported not only by pure scientific investigationsof famous scientists like the famous physiologist academician I.Pavlov,but also by half a century of his personal non-medicamental experienceas a practitioner. Tens of thousands of patients went through hiswould-famous “Health School”. His works have been translated nearly intoall languages of the world.

To this very subject the proposed invention refers. We take intoconsideration that ordinary people are little concerned about “digestiverestrictions” and “physiological reserves”.

Even though Dr. Shelton made a significant step to solve the problem,having compiled a table on the basis of his predecessor and colleague'sworks, but it did not make the problem easier for ordinary people. Theauthors of the proposed invention have been personally using this tablefor many years and got aware of all the problems related to it. It wasthe amazing results of “Health Prophylaxis Through Food Combining” thatmade us bear all the difficulties. The main aspects of the problem were:first, each time we had to recollect, for example, which products areproteins and which are carbohydrates, whether they are “concentrated” ornot, second, which mark (“good”, “poor” etc.) Dr. Shelton would give toevery pair combination of products and, third, which marks he would givethe food products cooked for a particular meal, as his table does notinclude any complicated combinations (3 or more products). Willingly ornot, we wished we could pass over all those speculations to thecomputer, leaving only the final decision for people to be made(deciding whether it was “good” or “bad”), and the amazing results ofthe prophylaxis.

In ancient times ordinary people unconsciously followed the rules of“Health Prophylaxis through Food Combining” by following the habits andcustoms of their tribes. Let's take as an example a combination from Dr.Shelton's table. Proteins and carbohydrates make a “bad” combination.Now it is a scientifically proven fact, very often ignored by ordinarypeople, although in the older times it was strictly obeyed. Dr. Sheltoncites a rule that existed in Ancient Greece and said that the warriorswere forbidden to take meat and bread at a single meal. A similarquotation was found by him in old Hebrew Moses' Scripture. Dr. Sheltonremarks that the very fact of including such a habit into the HolyScripture, which was equal to sanctifying it by the God, proves thatthis habit was firmly followed. In the 20th century, though, the oldhabits of “Health Prophylaxis through Food Combining” are basicallyforgotten, with very few exceptions.

At present “Health Prophylaxis through Food Combining” is based on theabove-shown Dr. Shelton's table, as well as on other printed books andon the numerous recipes from cookery books whose authors do take intoconsideration the principles of “Food Combining”. In other words,today's technology is a “bookish technology”, with its unavoidabledifficulties, especially for ordinary people. The main 2 problems whichwe are trying to solve with our Method and our Technical Facilities are:

the person who is willing to follow the rules of Food Combining tostrengthen his health has either to keep in his memory Dr. Shelton'stable along with other recommendations and recipes, or he has to haveall these books available every time he lays his dinner table or everytime he goes to the restaurant;

Dr. Shelton's table estimates only the combinations of 2 food products,while the combinations of 3 or more food products are not represented inthe table. This, again, makes the users either recollect themathematical combinatory methods, or stick to no more than 2 foodproducts at a meal, which is no longer used.

These two technological problems are quite difficult for ordinary peopleto solve, so “the bookish way” of health prophylaxis is not of any helpfor them. “Food Combining”, if they ever heard the term, is no more thanscientific meditations totally useless for in their everyday life. Theresults of “Health Prophylaxis through Food Combining” are available toan exclusively small group of people, so the knowledge on Food Combiningdoes not come to light. Due to this negligence man's health (or at leastthat of the larger part of mankind) suffers drastically. Even if wepresent every single person on the Earth a free copy of Dr. Shelton'stable and explain how good Food Combining is for their health, nothingwill be changed in the current status quo, as “bookish” ways arenormally foreign to ordinary people. This is the essence of the problem.It is rather of technological character, hence it can be solved only bytechnical means, which is the aim of the proposed invention.

People had to learn the Multiplication Table until the Calculator wasdesigned. Now people are unlikely to be willing to learn the FoodCombining Table, although it might be more important for them than theMultiplication Table as it concerns their health. This (exigency) ofmankind should be facilitated with microprocessors to free people fromthe necessity of learning by heart the Food Combining Table and theaccompanying definitions, terms and rules. The user of the calculatordoes not have to learn the theory of figures he is satisfied with theresult of calculations, leaving the theory of figures for the designersof the calculator.

The Food Combining Table should be processed in the same way: a newmicrocomputer should be designed on the basis of all relevantdefinitions, terms and rules, while the user must obtain only the finalproduct—the marks (“bad”, “poor”, “fair”, “good”) for the digestivequality of the food combination he is going to take. The microprocessorshould also be able to assess the food combination regardless thequantities used—the user should be free to decide how many food productshe is going to take at a particular meal. The proposed “Microcomputerfor Food Combining” is intended to suit these purposes.

The problem of “Health Prophylaxis through Food Combining” ismany-sided. It covers quite a number of such complicated notions as“natural food products and man's natural digestive capabilities”, “foodcombinations invented by food manufacturers and the habits acquired byfood consumers”, “value added profit for food processors and healthlosses for their consumers”, “flexibility of businessmen's mind andinertness of ordinary people's thinking”. This tight knot of problemsonly man himself can unbind, but he must have an instrument to do it.The proposed “Microcomputer for Food Combining” is just this type ofinstrument.

The problem of “Health Prophylaxis through Food Combining” ismany-sided. To spread a certain type of scientific knowledge we shouldintroduce it into the “toy” series which are of an increasing rate ofdifficulty. The man who has mastered a pocket calculator is likely toget interested in a home computer, and then—in a professional computer.The scientific value of Food Combining is high enough to be spreadwidely. To implement it, we need an initial easy “toy”. What is no lessimportant, though, is the cost of the “toy”. It should be of low costotherwise we cannot expect it to be widely distributed, andcorrespondingly, we cannot count on the knowledge on Food Combining tobe spread, either. Only with the inexpensive technical facilities theknowledge on Food Combining will come to light, it will be discussed byordinary people who will get accustomed to it, which, in its turn, willarise interest in “Health Prophylaxis through Food Combining”. The“Microcomputer for Food Combining” proposed herein is comparable in costto an ordinary pocket calculator and can be used as such an easy “toy”for learning the rules of Food Combining.

The “Food Combining Microcomputer” looks like an ordinary pocketcalculator, too: a similar LCD, a solar battery with an electrical poweraccumulator, and a keyboard. Only the signs on the keys are different,but, again, they are quite clear for everybody: “Vegetables”, “Fish”,“Butter”, “Fruits” etc. After pushing one, two, three, ten or more keys,the user can push the key “Mark” (which is the “mark” of the digestivequality of the food selected) and see immediately the result on thedisplay: “bad”, “poor”, “fair”, or “good”. Now the Microcomputer's partis over, and the user has to take a decision himself whether he willtake the food products he has chosen at a single meal, as his habitgoes, or plan his meal in a different way. Having thought of it once,the user will come to his “Food Combining Microcomputer” time and again.

Man is incredulous, but he is also curious. It goes without saying, heholds his health dear. These two features should drive him to practicalmeasures, especially so because he has a “toy” to implement them. Whynot observe one's state, if the Manual on “Microcomputer for FoodCombining” says:

“If 3 or 4 hours after a meal you are feeling the signs of fermentationin your intestines, like stomach distress (heart burn), gases, belchingor mucus flows, avoid eating the food combinations which are estimated“bad” and “poor”. Observe how you are feeling. If you have never comeacross these symptoms and you consider yourself quite a healthy person,if you are sure your stomach and intestines are good enough, and yourway of food consumption is rational, but the “Food CombiningMicrocomputer” shows from time to time a “had” mark, you should excludethese food combinations from your ratio for a long enough period of timeto check the real state of your health—who knows where your limit is?”

Man is a social being. A “toy” in the hands of one person arouses thecuriosity of another. If you are feeling much better as a result of somesteps undertaken, you are eager to share your experience with yourfriends and relatives. Slowly the scientific knowledge about the “FoodCombining” will come to God's light from ignorance to attract those whohave never before heard about it. This is the way for “HealthProphylaxis through Food Combining” opened by the “Microcomputer forFood Combining”.

The authors of the present patent application call this way“COMPUTERIZED METHOD OF HEALTH PROPHYLAXIS THROUGH FOOD COMBINING” andclaim the legal patent protection of the proposed Method, which in itshealing effect is the same as the “bookish way”, but with the speciallydesigned Technical Facilities is becoming accessible to ordinary people,while ordinary people are, in a certain sense, the whole mankind.

“COMPUTERIZED METHOD OF HEALTH PROPHYLAXIS THROUGH FOOD COMBINING” isdifficult in many aspects from developers' side. These difficulties areconnected with the authors' concern about the implementation of theirMethod, which is discussed hereabove. For the users, however, the methodis extremely simple. It enables the users:

to test regularly, before every meal, the digestive quality of the foodin accordance with the Food Combining Criteria,

to correct the nutrition process in accordance with short-timeobservations (3 or 4 hours after meals) of one's state with the targetof eliminating the symptoms of gastric and intestinal fermentation,

to correct the nutrition process on the basis of long-term observationsof one's state with the overall target of improvement of one's health.

Utilization in this Method of the proposed “Microcomputer for FoodCombining” enables even a seven-year-old boy to carry out theprophylaxis of his health, as for this he needs to know only two things:

the difference between the notions “good” and “bad”,

the fact that both man's health and man's illnesses have the sameorigin, which is the nutrition.

Definitely, the knowledge of these two things is possessed by everybodywithout any exception, which is the reason why mankind is ready toaccept our Method of health prophylaxis.

Hereabove we set the technological task as for the Method and proposedthe Technical Facilities specially designed as the technical solution.We disclosed hereabove the annovational idea which, definitely, needs afurther development. The effectiveness of the further developmentdepends upon the cooperation of the inventors of the Method with itsusers. In its turn, the cooperation depends on the legal basis it willobtain. The designer of the Method should obtain the money to furtherdevelop and implement the Method, while the user, in his turn, shouldpay for the license on utilization of the Method. Payment for thelicense constitute part of the price of the Technical Facilities, whichshould be worked out jointly by the manufacturer and the designer of thesaid Technical Facilities. This is possible only on condition of havinga reliable legal basis, the starting point of which can be constitutedby the claimed patent on the claimed proposed inventions.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

Any computer technology is conglomeration of software and hardware. Inthe framework of our task it is unreasonable to design any special typeof hardware, as there exist quite a number of suitable devices, as wellas the corresponding technologies. We need only a appropriate algorithmand the software to implement it.

Pure transferring of the data on “Food Combining” from the printedmaterials onto the display is not the proper way to solve the problem—itis just another way of getting an electronic copy, which cannot help byitself. The main problem is not only transferring the information fromthe printed matters into the microprocessor, but also getting anopportunity to process the information. The data on “Food Combining”exists in verbal form, while the computer can only process the datapresented in characters. Without any doubt, modern technologies inprogramming can facilitate the processing of the data presented inverbal form, too. The data on “Food Combining” is not an exception inthis respect, either. But designing a special software for “FoodCombining” to process more than two food products taken at a single mealwill demand comparatively powerful technical facilities, and then thecost of manufacturing and selling such a product will be too high. Theproposed “Computerized Method of Health Prophylaxis through FoodCombining” is not targeted exclusively at wealthy people who can affordbuying an expensive “toy”. The proposed Microcomputer is intended foreveryone, considering the fact that common people are prone to buy onlyuseful and inexpensive “toys” like a pocket calculator.

To enable people to process the information on “Food Combining” withsmall microprocessors like a pocket calculator, we need an idea totransfer the data into characters in an unusually simple way. Dr.Shelton made his contribution here, too. He gives us a key for the bestway to computerize his table to be used with small microprocessors. Noneof those who went to school will object to such equations as “good”=“4”or “bad”=“2” if we want to estimate the quality of something. So, withDr. Shelton's key we can consider the task of processing two foodproduct combinations settled. Let's make the next step—pass over fromDr. Shelton's two-dimensional table to multi-dimensional table forcombinations of two and more products.

Any combination of three and more products can be represented as a setof certain pairs which have already been “marked” by Dr. Shelton. Sincethe table does not consider the weights of the products chosen, the meanproportional of the “marks” of the corresponding pairs can be used tocalculate the necessary marks. This second step brings the completesolution to the problem of computerizing “Food Combining” with the helpof small microprocessors. The proposed steps, indeed, result in amulti-dimensional table with the “marks” of the digestive quality offood combinations with two or more products. While Dr. Shelton's tableis two-dimensional (two-product), it can be easily represented on asheet of paper. This paper version of the table is the basis of thebookish way of health prophylaxis through food combining. Our table ismulti-dimensional, it comprises many products that is why it can not bedrawn on a sheet of paper. It is not reasonable to display it from themicroprocessor where is it formed according to our algorithm, or to takeit out from the computer's memory, where it was recorded in the processof its formation, or to take it out from the physical storage of themicroprocessor where it was registered by the manufacturer. We think itnecessary to stress here one point: our table is, in reality, anelectronic table facilitating a transfer from “book technology” to“computer technology” in health prophylaxis through food combining. Thisfact now is clear both for a designer of microprocessors and for adesigner of software.

Therefore, we think it logical to name our table “ELECTRONIC MULTI-FOODCOMBINING TABLE”. Here we give another description of our table with itscharacteristic features compared to those of Dr. Shelton (see p.2).

Dr. Shelton's table can be called “Two-Product Combining Table”. Itscharacteristic features are as follows:

it “marks” the digestive qualities of combinations of two classes ofproducts (“proteins and starches”, “proteins and fats” etc.).

“marks” are expressed in words.

Our “Electronic Multi-Food Combining Table” as compared to its prototypeby Dr. Shelton is characterized with the following features:

it marks the digestive qualities of combinations of any number ofproducts (Fish, Rice, Potatoes, Vegetable oil etc., both for theseproducts taken separately and for their combinations with any otherproducts - however imaginative modern cooks are!);

the “mark” in our microprocessor is given in the form of to a figureapproximated to “5”, “4”, “3”, or “2”;

“the embryo” of the table is composed of the “Numeric Two Food ProductCombining Table” which is worked out by a hygienist on the basis of Dr.Shelton's table and all the additional data which became known after thepublication of Dr. Shelton's table, and also the data which will becomeknown still later;

the said “embryo” of our table is introduced into the physical storageof the microprocessor for “Food Combining”, or is introduced into thesoftware as the initial database;

the “marks” for three or more food product combinations are processed bythe microprocessor according to the following algorithm: any combinationof three and more food products can be looked upon as a combination ofpair combinations which are already stored in the “embryo” of the table.The “mark” for a three and more food product combination will becalculated as a mean proportional of the “marks” for the correspondingpair combinations.

In the next section the “Electronic Multi-Food Combining Table” isdescribed again, this time with particular numeric examples.

A Better Way of Implementation of the Technical Facilities

For any geographical or ethnic region we can point out some 10 or 20main food products, like “rice”, “fish”, “beans” etc. Let's call theseproducts “A”, “B”, “C” and so on. According to the edited Dr. Shelton'stable the “marks” to the digestive quality of these pair combinationsare: 5”, “4”, “3”, or “2”.

As a result we have now the “embryo” of our electronic table:

The “Embryo of the Electronic Table”. A 5 B 3 5 C 4 2 5 D 5 3 2 5 E 2 25 4 5 . . . . . . . A B C D E .

The “Electronic Table” itself if formed by the software on the basis ofthe algorithm which can be illustrated by 2 examples:

EXAMPLE 1

A combination of 3 food products.

Let our combination comprise food products “A”, “B”, and “C”. It can beconsidered as a set of 3 pair combinations: “A,B”, “A,C”, and “B,C”. Forevery pair combination we take ready-made “marks” from the “Embryo ofthe Electronic Table”.

[A,B]=3, [A,C]=4, [B,C]=2

The “mark” we need to evaluate our 3-product combination is calculatedas the mean proportional of the three values:

[A,B,C]=(3+4+2):3=3.0

EXAMPLE 2

A combination of 4 food products.

Let our combination comprise food products “A”, “B”, “D”, and “E”. likein the previous example we take the pre-defined “marks” from the “Embryoof the Electronic Table:”

[A,B]=3 [A,D]=5 [A,E]=2 [B,D]=3 [B,E]2 [D,E]=4

Now we can calculate the “mark” for our 4-product combination:

[A,B,D,E]=(3+5+2+3+2+4):6=3.2

For any other possible combinations the calculations are done in asimilar way. If the Technical Facility can take into consideration 10food products, the “Electronic Multi-Food Combining Table” will holdabout 1,000 figures. If it is necessary to “mark” up to 20 foodproducts, the number of possible combinations will be about 1,000,000.

The examples given prove that there should not arise any problems as toprogramming or microprogramming, so in this respect we can consider thetask of computerizing the knowledge on Food Combining practicallysolved. We have only to discuss better variants of the TechnicalFacilities for testing the digestive qualities of various foodcombinations which we are used to take at a single meal. This testing isto be done for the purpose of health prophylaxis through correct foodcombinations. Such technical facilities might be called “FOOD COMBININGTESTER”.

The proposed hereby “Food Combining Microcomputer” is in fact anautonomous “Food Combining Tester” or, to be precise, a basic model ofsuch a tester, since it fulfills the minimum scope of functions. It issuch model of Tester with a minimal scope of functions that we considerthe best version of “Food Combining Microcomputer”, having the lowestproduction costs, hence the maximal sales volume. Here we come back tothe fact that our inventive idea does not concern the Facilities, butthe Method of health prophylaxis through the knowledge on Food Combiningwhich is still lying in the shade. Again we must stress that theknowledge on Food Combining will continue lying in the shade until acomparatively cheap, yet useful “toy” becomes available to public atlarge. It is only such a “toy”, being in their hands and stipulatingthem first just to use the word “Food Combining” that can bring thisknowledge into the light. We are sure that Technical Facilities aloneare not enough, and we must find an efficient way of prophylaxis, sincepeople's minds and habits are extremely inertial as proven by many yearsof the authors' personal experience.

At the same time the second claimed Technical Facility—“Software Productfor Food Combining” which can also be called “FOOD COMBINING PROGRAMTESTER” gives wide opportunities for creative fantasy, having inpractice slight effect on the production costs of such Program Tester.Let's stress two useful functions in addition to the basic function oftesting food combinations as for their correctness.

For the owners of multi-media computers this basic function can b eprovided together with special games attracting attention to healthprophylaxis through Food Combining.

In “Food Combining Program Tester” designed for any computer the basicfunction of food testing goes together with a statistic program. Let'sexplain this idea. Along with health prophylaxis purposes the user ofour Software Product simultaneously keeps a diary represented as 2 rowsof figures. The first row “marks” the digestive quality of the foodcombinations used, while the second “marks” how well the user feelswithin 3-4 hours after the corresponding meal. The correlations ratio ofthese two rows, automatically calculated with standard statistictechniques demonstrate the usefulness of such health prophylaxis whichthe user has decided to stick to. The authors of the present patentapplication are sure that the experience of such users of the claimedTechnical Facilities, or, more precisely, the claimed Method of HealthProphylaxis will not be able to contradict to more than half-a-century'sexperience of Dr. Shelton's non-medicamental practice—they will be onlythankful to Dr. Shelton for the improvement of their health.

In conclusion to the above-said the authors hardly dare to express theirrather seditious ideas connected with their own unfinished argument onthe patentability of their proposed invention. Our deep respect towardsthe memory of Dr. Shelton did not allow us to begin our application withthis statement. The idea is the following:

“Dr. Shelton empowered mankind with the systematized KNOWLEDGE which heapprobated in his Health School and proved the EFFECTIVENESS of thisknowledge, but he did not define the METHOD to make this knowledge workfor MANKIND. Similarly, James Maxwell provided mankind with systematicKNOWLEDGE on electricity and magnetism, showing directly the existenceof Lorentz' Force, but neither Maxwell nor Lorentz gave the METHOD tomake this knowledge “work” for the mankind, and the ELECTRIC MOTORappeared later with all its “design components” and “their connections”to become a patentable invention. Our proposed invention could alsobecome a kind of an “electric motor in Food Combining” in the form of aTESTER as easy in utilization, as is an electric motor in a children'stoy, so that even a 7-year old boy can use it. Our TESTER, however, doesnot possess any new “design features”; we can not apply a screw with ascrewdriver to our “Electronic Multi-Food Table” which lays the basisfor the Tester, that is why our Electronic Table can not be considered a“design component”, and our Tester does not fit the “bed of Procrustean”of the Patentability Criteria. That is why, probably, mankind will haveto go on reading Dr. Shelton's books, which are luckily translated intonearly all languages of the world without practicing “Health Prophylaxisthrough Food Combining”, as it possesses neither the METHOD nor theTECHNICAL FACILITIES to implement it.

It is fairly easy to prove, even speculatively, that mankind is notaware of “Health Prophylaxis through Food Combining”. Let's try to“interview” mankind, asking every man at least 5 questions from Dr.Shelton's books and checking them against Dr. Shelton's recommendations:

1. Do you intentionally avoid eating concentrated protein (like meat,fish, eggs or cheese) at a single meal with concentrated carbohydrate(bread, cereals or potatoes)?

2. Do you intentionally avoid eating starch (i.e. bread or porridge)with sweet products (like jelly, jam, sugar or honey) at a single meal?

3. Do you intentionally avoid eating protein (like meat, fish, eggs orcheese) with fats (i.e. butter or vegetable oil) at a single meal?

4. Do you intentionally avoid eating fruits for dessert?

5. Do you always avoid having milk separately from other food likeporridge or bread?

Having received answers from every man, let's sort out all those whosaid “yes” to all five questions, sum up the number of such people andcalculate the percentage of people who are practically concerned about“Health Prophylaxis through Food Combining”, at least in the scope ofthese 5 questions. We are sure that the conclusion will be thefollowing: “No, mankind does not know Health Prophylaxis through FoodCombining. Yes, there exist the books and the KNOWLEDGE on the subject,but this knowledge does not exist in peoples' minds. Yes, th e reason ofsuch a situation is the lack of the METHOD of utilization. Yes, theMethod exists, although speculatively, but there do not exist theTechnical Facilities to implement the speculative Method. Yes, in theage of intormatics it is necessary to widen the bed of Procrustean ifpeople can benefit from it.”

With these seditious thoughts the authors, still involved in thediscussion, submit the present Patent Application to patent experts,though to some extent in contradiction with Rule 9(iv) of theInstructions PCT, because they use every effort to protect their Methodof Health Prophylaxis for the sake of ordinary people and,simultaneously, get an opportunity to implement their Method and furtherdevelop it through the above-mentioned “feedback” from the users of theMethod.

What is claimed is:
 1. A microcomputer apparatus for digestive markingof food combinations and eating manners, comprising: (a) memory meansfor storing information regarding: (i) foods databases, (ii) a databaseof food-combining guidelines, and (iii) an algorithm for: selecting byan user a combination of foods from among those in all foods databasesin the memory in order to produce a mark characterizing digestiveefficiency of the food combination, producing the mark for the foodcombination selected by the user for testing its digestive efficiency,and presenting the mark for the food combination to the user; and (b)execution means for executing of the algorithm.
 2. The microcomputerapparatus according to claim 1, wherein: (a) the memory means aredestined also for storing information regarding: (i) a database ofeating guidelines, and (ii) an extended algorithm, which further isdestined also for: selecting by the user an eating manner on the basisof all eating guidelines in the memory in order to produce a markcharacterizing digestive efficiency of the eating manner, producing themark for the eating manner, and presenting the mark for the eatingmanner to the user; and (b) the execution means are destined also forexecuting of the extended algorithm.
 3. The microcomputer apparatusaccording to claim 2, (a) wherein the memory means are destined also forreceiving and retaining a database of information regarding user'sregistered eating manners along with its corresponding user's marksbased upon indigestion symptoms, a posteriori—after eating by themanners, in order to use the information by a more extended algorithmfor further digestive marking of that person's eating manners, and wherethe database is supplemented by the user in the course of time; and (b)comprising input means for entering the information into the memory. 4.The microcomputer apparatus according to claim 1 or claim 2 or claim 3,(a) wherein the memory means are destined also for receiving andretaining information regarding at least one of: a database of user'sadditional foods and a database of user's additional eating guidelines,in order to use also the information by an once more extended algorithmfor further digestive marking, and where the databases are supplementedin the course of time; and (b) comprising input means for entering theinformation into the memory.
 5. A computer system for digestive markingof food combinations and eating manners, comprising: (a) a computingdevice having a memory; (b) databases in the memory for storinginformation regarding foods and food-combining guidelines; (c) an inputdevice for selecting a user, a combination of foods from among those inthe foods databases in the memory; (d) an output device for presenting amark for the food combination to the user; and (e) an applicationprogram, realizing an algorithm for digestive marking of foodcombinations, is destined to provide: selecting by the user, with theaid of the input device, a food combination in order to produce a markcharacterizing digestive efficiency of the food combination, producing,with the aid of the computing device, the mark for the food combinationselected by the user for testing its digestive efficiency, andpresenting, with the aid of the output device, the mark for the foodcombination to the user.
 6. The computer system according to claim 5,(a) comprising also a database, in the memory, relative to eatingguidelines; and wherein: (b) the input device are destined also forselecting by the user an eating manner on the basis of all eatingguidelines in the memory; (c) the output device are destined also forpresenting a mark for the eating manner to the user; and (d) theapplication program, further realizing an extended algorithm fordigestive marking of eating manners, is destined also to provide:selecting by the user, with the aid of the input device, an eatingmanner in order to produce a mark characterizing digestive efficiency ofthe eating manner, producing, with the aid of the computing device, themark for the eating manner selected by the user for testing itsdigestive efficiency, and presenting, with the aid of the output device,the mark for the eating manner to the user.
 7. The computer systemaccording to claim 6, (a) comprising also a database, in the memory, ofinformation regarding user's registered eating manners along with itscorresponding user's marks based upon indigestion symptoms, aposteriori—after eating by the manners, in order to use the informationby a more extended algorithm for further digestive marking of thatperson's eating manners, and where the database is supplemented by theuser in the course of time; and wherein: (b) the input device aredestined also for entering the information into the memory; and (c) theapplication program, realizing the more extended algorithm, is destinedto use the information for further digestive marking of eating mannersalso.
 8. The computer system according to claim 5 or claim 6 or claim 7,comprising: (a) at least one of: a database, in the memory, ofinformation regarding user's additional foods and a database, in thememory, of information regarding of user's additional eating guidelines,in order to use also the information by an once more extended algorithmfor further digestive marking, and where the databases are supplementedin the course of time; and (b) an input device for entering theinformation into the memory.
 9. A method of digestive marking of foodcombinations and eating manners, comprising the steps of: (a) entering,into a memory of a computing device, and retaining, in the memory,databases of information regarding natural foods, classed scientificlyfor purposes of food combining, and food-combining guidelines as ascientific basis of a base algorithm for digestive marking of foodcombinations at a single meal; (b) selecting, with the aid of an inputdevice for the computing device, a combination of foods from among thosein the foods databases in the memory in order to produce a markcharacterizing digestive efficiency of the food combination; (c)producing the mark for the food combination with the aid of thecomputing device which executes the base algorithm based upon standardmethods of a mathematical theory of combinations and mathematicalstatistician as applied to data from the said database for foods and thesaid database for food-combining guidelines; and (d) presenting, withthe aid of an output device for the computing device, the mark for thefood combination.
 10. The method according to claim 9, further includingthe steps of: (a) entering into and retaining in the memory a databaseof information with regard to eating guidelines as a scientific basis ofan extended algorithm now for digestive marking of eating manners, wherethe eating guidelines as a whole include the food-combining guidelinesas a constituent of the whole; (b) selecting, with the aid of the inputdevice, an eating manner on the basis of all eating guidelines in thememory in order to produce a mark characterizing digestive efficiency ofthe eating manner as a whole including food-combining as a constituentof the whole; (c) producing the mark for the eating manner with the aidof the computing device which executes the extended algorithm; (d)presenting, with the aid of the output device, the mark for the eatingmanner.
 11. The method according to claim 9, further including the stepof entering into and retaining in the memory a database of informationregarding registered eating manners along with its corresponding marksbased upon indigestion symptoms, a posteriori—after eating by themanners, in order to use the information by a more extended algorithmfor further digestive marking of eating manners, where the database issupplemented in the course of time.
 12. The method according to claim 9or claim 10 or claim 11, further comprising at least one of: the step ofentering into and retaining in the memory a database of informationregarding user's additional foods and the step of entering into andretaining in the memory a database of information regarding user'sadditional eating guidelines, in order to use also the information by anonce more extended algorithm for further digestive marking, and wherethe databases are supplemented in the course of time.